State v. Williams
2016 Ohio 7777
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Kenneth Williams was indicted for grand theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) for obtaining $17,000 by inducing a victim to pay for leases/investments in properties in which Williams had no legal interest.
- Williams entered a no contest plea to the indictment.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor orally recited facts indicating the victim voluntarily handed over money because he believed Williams owned the properties (i.e., the victim consented to the transfers based on a false pretense).
- Defense counsel “stipulated to the finding” after the prosecutor’s recitation. The trial court accepted the plea, found Williams guilty, ordered restitution, and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment.
- Williams appealed, arguing the prosecutor’s factual proffer negated the statutory element of "without consent" required by R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), so the plea could not support a finding of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may accept a felony no-contest plea and find guilt when the prosecutor’s factual proffer positively negates an essential element of the charged offense | State: Bird requires that when an indictment alleges all elements of a felony, a no-contest plea admits the truth of the indictment and the court must find guilt | Williams: The prosecutor’s factual recitation showed the victim consented to transfer of money (albeit induced by fraud), negating the "without consent" element of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and making a finding of guilt improper | The court held that when the prosecutor’s recitation of facts at a felony no-contest plea positively negates an essential element of the offense, the trial court errs in finding the defendant guilty; Williams’s conviction was vacated and he was discharged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582, 692 N.E.2d 1013 (Ohio 1998) (a no-contest plea admits the truth of the indictment and, if the indictment states the offense, the court must find the defendant guilty)
- State v. Mehozonek, 8 Ohio App.3d 271, 456 N.E.2d 1353 (8th Dist. 1983) (trial court abuses discretion in accepting a no-contest plea where facts presented unequivocally negate an essential element)
- State v. Cohen, 60 Ohio App.2d 182, 396 N.E.2d 235 (1st Dist. 1978) (same principle that facts negating an element preclude acceptance of a plea)
- State v. Cooper, 168 Ohio App.3d 378, 860 N.E.2d 135 (2d Dist. 2006) (discusses exception where prosecutor’s proffer eliminates an essential element)